Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

orcs dnd.jpg


Several mainstream news sites have discovered that Dungeons & Dragons now refers to a character's species instead of race. The New York Times ended 2024 with a profile on Dungeons & Dragons, with a specific focus on the 2024 Player's Handbook's changes on character creation, the in-game terminology change from race to species, and the removal of Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species. The article included quotes by Robert J. Kuntz and John Stavropoulos and also referenced Elon Musk's outrage over Jason Tondro's forward in The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons.

The piece sparked additional commentary on a variety of sites, including Fox News and The Telegraph, most of which focused on how the changes were "woke." Around the same time, Wargamer.com published a more nuanced piece about the presentation of orcs in the 2024 Player's Handbook, although its headline noted that the changes were "doomed" because players would inevitably replace the orc's traditional role as aggressor against civilization with some other monstrous group whose motivations and sentience would need to be ignored in order for adventurers to properly bash their heads in.

[Update--the Guardian has joined in also, now.]

Generally speaking, the mainstream news pieces failed to address the non-"culture war" reasons for many of these changes - namely that Dungeons & Dragons has gradually evolved from a game that promoted a specific traditional fantasy story to a more generalized system meant to capture any kind of fantasy story. Although some campaign settings and stories certainly have and still do lean into traditional fantasy roles, the kinds that work well with Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species/race, many other D&D campaigns lean away from these aspects or ignore them entirely. From a pragmatic standpoint, uncoupling Ability Score Increases from species not only removes the problematic bioessentialism from the game, it also makes the game more marketable to a wider variety of players.

Of course, the timing of many of these pieces is a bit odd, given that the 2024 Player's Handbook came out months ago and Wizards of the Coast announced plans to make these changes back in 2022. It's likely that mainstream news is slow to pick up on these types of stories. However, it's a bit surprising that some intrepid reporter didn't discover these changes for four months given the increased pervasiveness of Dungeons & Dragons in mainstream culture.

We'll add that EN World has covered the D&D species/race terminology changes as they developed and looks forward to covering new developments and news about Dungeons & Dragons in 2025 and beyond.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

There is a reason they say "History is written by the victors".
That certainly applies to some conflicts - Julius Caesar's Gaul campaign for example. And yet, if you have access to enough of a soapbox (or publishing companies for school text books), the loser's narrative can reign supreme for a long time such as with the American Civil War and Reconstruction period.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Point. All this grumbling around superstrong halflings is a strawman, to distract from the real issue, which is intelligence. At the beginning of 5e orcs had a penalty to intelligence, which meant that with rolled stats they could have an intelligence of 2 - equal to a cow. So clearly nothing morally wrong in enslaving them. Or eating them.
ORC it is what for dinner. the other other white meat.
 

Point. All this grumbling around superstrong halflings is a strawman, to distract from the real issue, which is intelligence. At the beginning of 5e orcs had a penalty to intelligence, which meant that with rolled stats they could have an intelligence of 2 - equal to a cow. So clearly nothing morally wrong in enslaving them. Or eating them.
I mean not to argue in favor of stat penalties but with rolled stats a human can have an intelligence of 3, equal to a cat or dog. No harm in keeping one as a pet.

On the other hand I've been against Int penalties since that time I saw actual national socialists using Orc stat penalties to explain intelligent people of the races they deem inferior. So contrary to all the handwringing about this being a thing that doesn't actually have any real world applicability... it sadly does.
 



I go back to what someone earlier said that this is an issue because Orc is a player species. I do not think it should be a core player species. I felt the same about the half-orc.
I mean, as World of Warcraft kind of showed, orcs are easily popular enough to be a core race

But D&D decided to have half orc as a thing ages ago, was always a weird look, and now we got orcs proper finally.
 

I mean, as World of Warcraft kind of showed, orcs are easily popular enough to be a core race

But D&D decided to have half orc as a thing ages ago, was always a weird look, and now we got orcs proper finally.
Didn't feel weird to me, but I got into Tolkien before I got into D&D (but, like, right before).
 

I don’t mind the changes and understand why they are in place, but aren’t all the species abilities you get biologically based also?

For example, because of your Human biology, you are more Resourceful, Skillfull and Versatile than other species. Or because of your Halfling biology you are Brave, Nimble, Lucky and Stealthy. Because of your Orc biology you have a primal rage inside (Adrenaline Rush).

The species are still defined by their biology, it’s just a bit more hidden - not a broad sweep ability score adjustment.

Am I seeing that correctly? Sorry, I don’t own the 2024 books yet.
 

I don’t mind the changes and understand why they are in place, but aren’t all the species abilities you get biologically based also?
They seem to be that way in the 2024 PHB. Previous editions of D&D had species abilities being a mix of biology and culture. Age, Size, Speed, Language followed by a signature ability unique to that species plus some bonus skill, weapon and armor proficiencies.
 

I don’t mind the changes and understand why they are in place, but aren’t all the species abilities you get biologically based also?

For example, because of your Human biology, you are more Resourceful, Skillfull and Versatile than other species. Or because of your Halfling biology you are Brave, Nimble, Lucky and Stealthy. Because of your Orc biology you have a primal rage inside (Adrenaline Rush).

The species are still defined by their biology, it’s just a bit more hidden - not a broad sweep ability score adjustment.

Am I seeing that correctly? Sorry, I don’t own the 2024 books yet.

Not sure. If you're a Storm giant Goliath, you can take a reaction to inflict thunder damage to an opponent that damages you within 60 feet, and if you're a Cloud giant, you're able to teleport. I can't see biology being responsible for these. Same with Luck: one can't be biologically lucky. If you wanted to say that abilities are still species-based, yes they do.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top